| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bartosz Dmytrak <bdmytrak(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chris Angelico <rosuav(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL limitations question |
| Date: | 2012-07-26 16:37:55 |
| Message-ID: | 20120726163755.GA21270@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 08:54:53PM +0200, Bartosz Dmytrak wrote:
> 2012/7/13 Chris Angelico <rosuav(at)gmail(dot)com>
>
>
> Does that help?
>
>
> Sure :)
> I know what unlimited means, but I suggest to change docs to be more accurate.
> Those "limits" are huge (e.g. number of indexes limited by pg_class table
> size), but still exists.
>
> it is like the famous Henry Ford's color choose:
> "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is
> black."
> Number of indexes is unlimited until it is limited by pg_class table size
> (regardless free HD space).
What is the pg_class table size limit then? Is that really helping
anyone?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-07-26 16:42:08 | Re: Smaller data types use same disk space |
| Previous Message | Mike Christensen | 2012-07-26 16:20:58 | Re: Smaller data types use same disk space |